Legal Opinion

Klingler v. Milwaukee Mechanics Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 1927PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStevens, J.

The contention of the insurance company is that it is not liable under the policy because:(1) The premises were vacant more than ten days before the fire without the vacancy permit.

*74(2) Proofs of loss, were not made until more than sixty-days after the fire.(1) The insured did what the great majority of men who have policies of insurance do when they desire a vacancy permit. He went to the agent who had represented the company in all matters respecting this policy and requested that such permit be issued. He was assured by the agent that he would attend to the matter. He relied upon sucta…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Welch v. Fire Ass'n of PhiladelphiaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Manchester v. . Guardian Assurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
  3. Spohn v. National Fire Insurance Co. of HartfordWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Stillman v. North River InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Peck v. National Liberty InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1923

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. RTE Corp. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance v. BechardSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1963
  3. George v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Ciokewicz v. Lynn Mutual Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  5. State Bank of Viroqua v. Capitol Indemnity Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API